Thursday, March 31, 2016

The Dying of the Light for John Kasich.

To some degree what we are seeing at the moment is that John Kasich’s theory of the Republican race was flawed. John Kasich wanted to go to New Hampshire and come in second, and he did. John Kasich wanted to win the battle for his home state of Ohio, and he did, in relatively impressive fashion. The problem is that outside of these two states John Kasich does not have much to talk about. He is more than 5 million votes behind Trump and a little less than 3 million votes behind Cruz. Kasich’s troubles are also reflected in the delegate count. His argument about being stronger in the general election and being just an overall better candidate may well be true. But he can’t duck the fact that ultimately such decisions are made by the voters.

We see where the voters are in two polls that came out today. In the Wisconsin Public Policy Poll Kasich registers just 17%, trailing Cruz at 38% and Trump at 37%. In New York, the new Quinnipiac poll has John Kasich again in third with 19% compared to 56% for Trump and 20% for Cruz. Whatever regional strength Kasich may have in the other Northeastern states a week later, it is very hard to be the third guy in the race, who repeatedly comes in third. In short, while a distant third in Wisconsin might not actually turn off the lights on the Kasich campaign, it will be quite difficult for him to sustain the thrust of his argument if such an outcome occurs. Voters who might more naturally fall into the Kasich camp may nonetheless feel compelled to choose between what seems like their true remaining options.   This was clearly evidenced earlier in the campaign by Rubio’s post-super-Tuesday collapse. When voters saw things edging in Cruz’s direction Rubio dropped from 18.7% in Alabama on March 1st to 5.1% in Mississippi just a week later. There’s not that much difference between Mississippi and Alabama in what their ideal preferences would be. But Rubio’s slightly weaker performances in earlier contests were enough to signal his decline. Kasich’s showing looks likely to do the same signaling. This is mostly good news for Ted Cruz, but it does somewhat complicate the next month for him, as there may not be enough time to turn around the Northeast. So Trump may have a good month before another showdown in Indiana on May 3rd. Without a better than expected performance in Wisconsin the door will pretty much close on John Kasich.

Share:

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

What Donald Trump Needs to Get to 1237.

It seems as if, without new Republicans results, the political media have resigned themselves to the idea that Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee for President. We wrote last week that if the Republican Party wanted to wrest the nomination from Trump, it probably could, using the rules and some degree of skullduggery. We were clear this would be possible even if Trump got to 1237 delegates, the number he needs to win the nomination outright. But, as we also said before, the road to 1237 is far more treacherous for Trump than is generally perceived.

We don’t think he can get there. Indeed, we believe the Wisconsin primary next Tuesday we will likely close the door on Trump getting a majority of delegates. Regardless, for Trump to reach 1237, he needs to win every delegate in New York, New Jersey, West Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania statewide, Delaware, Wisconsin, Indiana, get a decent proportion of the remaining proportional states of Rhode Island, New Mexico, Washington state and Oregon and he would still need to win 19 Congressional districts in California’s primary. This would put him at exactly 1237 delegates.

It is true that the winner-take-all states of Nebraska, Montana and South Dakota could in theory could help him get over the threshold if he isn’t able to do it the other way, but those states are all hard lifts for Trump.

One of the problems with the 538 bench marks per state for getting Trump to 1237 was that it assumed Trump was likely to get delegates out of caucuses in Wyoming, North Dakota and Colorado that have been held but didn’t announce their results or hold the delegates to those results. The more information that is available, however, the less likely it looks that Trump got the delegates out of those states that 538 said he needed.

The fact Pennsylvania’s entire compliment of district level delegates are technically unpledged, meaning that the delegates don’t have to follow the election results, would not be a problem for a candidate other than Trump. For Trump that could be a disaster. The party, as defined by its apparatchiks, seems to be moving farther from, not closer toward, acceptance of his nomination.

Trump could reach this number but the initial read from the polling in Wisconsin and California is that the outlook is nowhere near certain. In fact, more things have to go right for Trump to get there than have to go right for his opponents to stop him.

In the end, his opponents may not have the will to stop Trump if he has the most delegates and the most votes, but they seem near certain to have the way.

Share:

Monday, March 28, 2016

Why it is wrong to assume any one Democratic candidate could get the same percent in every remaining state.

If you have been paying attention to the coverage this past week of Bernie Sanders and his chance of winning a majority of the pledged delegates, what you have heard over and over again is that Sanders needs something like 57% the remaining delegates to win.

That number seems large but not insurmountable. The real problem is not the size of the win, but the assumption that every remaining state and territory will have a uniform outcome, which is ridiculous. There are 1747 delegates left with Secretary Clinton having a lead of about 228 delegates. Playing out the states that are left point to serious problems for Sanders.

In our estimation, nine remaining contests worth 799 delegates clearly favor Clinton (New York, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia.) Assuming the most favorable possibilities for Sanders, he could perhaps reach a tie in the delegate total from these states. Frankly, that seems farfetched but let’s assume it anyway. That means Sanders is still down 228 delegates with only 948 delegates remaining.

Six states left on the calendar would seem to favor Sanders (Wisconsin, Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota). They have a combined 220 delegates and begin voting on April 5 with the Wisconsin primary. Sanders needs about 70% of these delegates overall to win. Sanders has reached these numbers in caucuses but only Vermont has been in this neighborhood in primaries. Two of these states are caucuses and will very likely be strong for Sanders. Even assuming that Sanders gets to 70% in these contests, either in all of them, or in aggregate, it only gets him 88 delegates, leaving a gap of about 140.

The remaining seven contests account for the last 728 delegates (Connecticut, Rhode Island, Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky and California.) At the moment, polling suggests the best Sanders can do is tie. To win, Sanders still needs roughly 60% of these delegates, which is a huge challenge.

California is one of these states. A win there is possible but to get up to 60% is highly unlikely. Today’s Los Angeles Times poll puts Sanders down eight in California. There is just nothing in the results so far, including last week’s Clinton win in Arizona, to make it seem remotely possible that Sanders can win California by 20%.

Of course it is easier to just say Sanders needs 57% of the remaining delegates, but when you actually take a look into what that would require it becomes nearly impossible.

Share:

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Let’s Talk about Caucuses on the Democratic Side

It is a slowish day so let’s jump into the fun subject of caucuses.

Bernie Sanders had a monster day yesterday, topping an overall monster week--all because of caucuses. Sanders has now won 10 out of 12 causes with two more to go in North Dakota and Wyoming. Additionally, he’s won 322 delegates in caucuses compared to Clinton’s 180 delegates. Without caucuses, he would trail by over 360 delegates and we wouldn’t be talking about the race even the small amount we are.

At the same time, the number of Democrats participating in caucuses this year, compared to the number of people voting for Obama in 2012 (a decent measure of “Democrats” voting) has been terrible in every single state. Take Washington State. In 2012, Obama got 1,755,000 votes while just 250,000 people showed up for the 2016 caucus, or around 15%.

This is typical of the caucus process, particularly once you leave the early-state drama of the Iowa and Nevada caucuses. It is easy to understand why people don’t flock to them. Caucusing is time consuming. Plus, there have been long lines and problems in almost all of them. In short, caucuses do a lousy job of reflecting what the average Democratic voter thinks.

They are also clearly important. In 2008, caucuses provided then Senator Obama with almost his entire margin of victory. (The confusion over the 2008 process in Florida and Michigan make exact comparisons iffy.) And it’s understandable that Sanders supporters are making much of his caucus victories. Obviously, they prefer winning to losing. However, It is worth contemplating what the Sanders supporters’ reaction would be if Sanders was winning huge voter majorities but Clinton was using smaller turnout events to win. Presumably they’d be going crazy at the undemocratic, and thus unfair, nature of the process.

Caucuses do have some party building advantages. And, in some states, they are almost required because the state does not want to spring for the cost of primaries. We saw the alternative in Arizona where the state skimped on the primaries and caused long lines and other horrible, unforgiveable problems. Still, caucuses clearly are not the best possible way to pick a president.

Share:

Friday, March 25, 2016

Democratic Preview: Alaska, Hawaii and Washington

We are fairly confident this is going to be Hillary Clinton’s worst delegate day on the calendar and it will not be close.

Caucuses have been the most difficult contests in which to predict margin. Where we have been most wrong has been in underrating Senator Sanders in caucuses. We tried hard not to make the same mistake this time. One pattern that has emerged is that while Senator Sanders is doing remarkably well in caucuses, he still hasn’t done as well as Obama did in 2008, except in the Maine caucus. So in predicting Saturday’s caucuses in Alaska, Hawaii and Washington that where we decided to land--very close to Obama’s winning margin in 08, but not quite there.

One note: in Washington, district level allocations, not the statewide totals, set the statewide and PLEO delegates. We have Sanders wining district level delegates 47 to 20; if he does one delegate better at the district level, he nets two more statewide delegates.

Tomorrow is the last big day for caucuses. Only two remain after tomorrow.

Total: Sanders 97, Clinton 45
Alaska: Sanders 11, Clinton 5
Allocation
Sanders
Clinton
AK AL
3
1
AK PLEO
1
1
AK 1
7
3

Hawaii:  Sanders 16, Clinton 9
Allocation
Sanders
Clinton
HI AL
4
2
HI PLEO
2
1
HI 1
5
3
HI 2
5
3






Washington:  Sanders 70, Clinton 31
Allocation
Sanders
Clinton
WA AL
15
7
WA PL
8
4
WA 1
5
2
WA 2
5
2
WA 3
4
2
WA 4
3
1
WA 5
3
2
WA 6
5
2
WA 7
9
3
WA 8
4
2
WA 9
5
2
WA 10
4
2
Share:

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Sam Wang: You just can’t let yourself be this wrong.

This election has led to more than its fair share of bad punditry. As a general principle we should be merciful. If we were forced to ignore everyone who has been wrong on occasion, there would be no one left to listen to. This site included. However sometimes people make predictions that are so poor that we really should ignore them at least until they find the heart to explain their mistake. Sam Wang, whom we have criticized previously, made just such a mistake with respect to the Arizona primary. Mr. Wang's poorly conceived contention was that John Kasich's decision to play in Arizona would cost Ted Cruz victory there.

The reason Mr. Wang made this prediction was that it fit with his already defined narrative suggesting that Kasich needed to get out of Cruz's way in a lot of states to optimize Cruz's chance of wining a contested convention. We explained in an earlier post why that narrative was wrong, but at least there was a theory. In Arizona there was no theory. What happened was that Donald Trump beat Ted Cruz by more than double the amount of votes that John Kasich got. The huge giant missing piece from Wang's analysis was that it simply assumed that what would have been the Rubio vote could be reassigned in some fashion to other candidates. In fact so much of the intended Rubio vote had already been cast that Rubio ended up beating Kasich in Arizona.  This impending dynamic was clear to all analysts who were watching the race closely. There was always simply too much early vote for anyone to catch Trump. In the end the early vote was considerably larger than 2/3rd of the total. Not being on top of this aspect of the vote, to the point where you assume Rubio supporters could be reassigned, strongly suggests Mr. Wang was simply not paying attention. You should not make predictions when you are not paying attention.

Share:

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

The Core GOP Dilemma: Should the Winner Win?

Last night’s Republican result was exactly what we were expecting. It also has gone a long way toward illuminating the path forward.
John Kasich had a really bad night after a very bad week. He won Ohio and then ended up with exceptionally little to show for it. Voters in Arizona and Utah seemed to figure out in short order that Kasich was not really in the race, giving him 10% and 17% respectively. After Donald Trump’s very large win in Arizona it also is clear that Trump has about a 99% chance to enter the convention with the most votes (he leads Cruz by over two million votes) and a better than 95% chance of doing so with the most delegates (he leads by 289 delegates).
  It is very much an open question of whether he actually will reach the 1237 delegates that he needs. We will dive deeper into this later but the reality is that by any objective measure at the end of nominating cycle it will be clear that Trump has won the primary process.
As we explained previously, there are many ways to rig this process against the actual winner and, if one is willing, the magic majority can be snapped away almost instantly. It is important to remember that in 2012 Ron Paul had some success in taking over delegations even in states where he was destroyed in the primary process. Similar efforts, with the full support of party brass, could be successful.
The problem with such a strategy is not that it would not work. The problem is that it might alienate the 12 to 15 million people who voted for Trump and the 30 or so million who chose to participate in the Republican primary process. The message that their votes did not end up counting has the potential to be exceptionally damaging to the party.
Whether that is more damaging than nominating Trump remains to be seen. But that is the core dilemma that plagues the Republican Party and will do so for at least the next two months. Another thing that emerged last night is that it will almost certainly take until June 7th for Trump to get close to 1237. We will dig into the fight for 1237 soon but it is not the all-important contest people believe it to be. Taking the nomination away from Trump might be easier optically if Trump does not get to 1237, but it might not be relevant mechanically.


Share:

Monday, March 21, 2016

Republican Preview: American Samoa, Arizona, Utah

Tuesday’s primary and caucuses are more like an appetizer than a main course. Arizona seems very likely to go for Donald Trump, particularly because such a large percentage of the vote has been early. That means there is likely to be a decent number of Marco Rubio votes in the mix that otherwise might have gone to the other two surviving candidates. Since Arizona is winner take all, Trump’s lead seems banked. This will net him 58 delegates. The margin is what will be interesting to see.  If Arizona looks like North Carolina, which was a close Trump win, this could be a warning sign going forward.
 Utah is a winner-take-all state at 50% that Ted Cruz looks exceptionally likely to clear. This will net him 40 delegates. American Samoa also votes tomorrow with six delegates being awarded.
The outcomes in these states are not much in doubt, but they could provide information about the contours of the race going forward. If Ted Cruz can keep the results close in Arizona that will be telling. If Donald Trump gets over 50% that would be an indicator of what might happen in the future. And Arizona might indicate how much of third wheel Kasich is. It could prove very hard to be a third wheel particularly as the Wisconsin primary looms.
Arizona
Trump: 58 delegates
Utah
Cruz: 40 Delegates
American Samoa
Cruz 3, Trump 2, Kasich 1


Share:

Democratic Preview: Arizona, Idaho, and Utah

We will begin with a warning. From here on, we see 10 states and territories being favorable to Sanders and 10 states and territories being favorable to Clinton. We see another seven states as being tossups. The next four weeks features six Sanders states, one toss-up state, and only one likely Hillary Clinton state. Thus Sanders is likely to have an exceptional run of states until New York on April 19.  
          It starts tomorrow with caucuses in Utah and Idaho that will be balanced a bit with Arizona’s primary. This coming Saturday there likely will be no balance. Hawaii is a tossup, but Washington state and Alaska look likely to go for Sanders, Washington by a huge margin.
Sanders could easily end up netting 50 or so delegates this week. However this week also marks close-to-the-end of the overwhelming white caucuses. (The final caucuses are Wyoming on April 9th and North Dakota on June 7th.) This run should surprise no one and should not lead to the belief that Sanders is coming back. His remaining states only have 393 delegates and he trails by 321.   
In the end Clinton will likely win the pledged delegate count by something like 500, but her current lead could drop by as much as 100 delegates until her states start voting again at the end of April.
This is what Tuesday looks like.
Total: Sanders 68, Clinton 63
Arizona
Total: Clinton 43, Sanders 32
Allocation
Clinton
Sanders
AZ AL
9
7
AZ PLEO
5
4
AZ 1
3
3
AZ 2
5
3
AZ 3
3
2
AZ 4
2
2
AZ 5
3
2
AZ 6
3
3
AZ 7
3
2
AZ 8
3
2
AZ 9
4
2

Idaho
Total: Sanders 15, Clinton 8


Allocation
Sanders
Clinton
ID AL
3
2
PLEO
2
1
ID 1
5
3
ID 2
5
2

Utah
Total: Sanders 21, Clinton 12

Allocation
Sanders
Clinton
UT AL
4
3
UT PLEO
3
1
UT 1
3
2
UT 2
4
2
UT 3
3
2
UT 4
4
2
Share:

Sunday, March 20, 2016

The Desire for an Arsonist and the Cruz Campaign’s Challenge

The first week of the end game has been surprisingly quiet. But the themes going forward are clear, which is what makes this race interesting. We have seen a very small number of establishment figures side with Ted Cruz, most notably Mitt Romney. There have been rumors of overtures from more U.S. Senators and evidence those overtures are being rebuffed. What is going on?

The reality is that Republican primary voters are livid at Republicans in Washington, so it’s hard for anyone, particularly Cruz, to accept establishment support. If Obama is pure evil, which is a widely held view in certain circles, than the Republican establishment response has been massively inadequate. Cruz himself stoked anger at the Republicans in Washington with his shut down of the government and his condemnations of his fellow Congressmen. The Cruz campaign recognized this anger from the very beginning of the race. Yet, it’s been Trump, not Cruz, who has best expressed this anger and most benefited from it.

It appears Republicans are looking for an arsonist as their nominee, someone who will burn to the ground the House of the Republican Establishment for its inability to stand up to Obama. The problem for Cruz is that while that establishment does not have very many votes, it does have access to money and the potential to game the rules at the convention.

The voters that Cruz needs to edge past Trump want to see Washington burn. Adding endorsements from the people who live in the house makes it less likely people will believe he is willing to burn it down. Trump has absolutely no risk on this front. Despite Cruz’s attempts, Trump’s brand is so clearly anti-establishment he does not face that risk.

Cruz needs to make nice with the very people voters hate and against whom his brand is built. This is his challenge.

Share:

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Sam Wang’s John Kasich nonsense.

We at MCFD try and stay in our own lane of analysis. We have made a few critiques here and there, but mostly we simply offer our perspective. But sometimes we see something that is just ridiculous, and we need to comment. Sam Wang’s comments provide such an occasion.

Wang suggests that Governor Kasich should now limit his efforts to competing only in states that Wang asserts choose delegates through a proportional system. If you have been following MCFD so far, you understand the contours of the Trump/Cruz/Kasich battle better than most and thus already understand why Kasich cannot and will not follow Wang’s advice. The important point is that, no matter what the math shows about getting to 1237, if you are John Kasich and you want to be the Republican nominee you understand that a candidate who has won only his home state and enters the convention with under 200 delegates is simply not a serious contender. No matter what the game theory says, John Kasich, needs to win more states. Fortunately for him there are some he could win. California looms large as a place that Kasich could excel; so does Pennsylvania. By competing in these states he does raise the odds of Trump success, but he also raises his own odds. Doing what Wang suggests would turn John Kasich instantly into an irrelevance. For Kasich to succeed, he really needs a big splash in Wisconsin to provide a jolt of good news before these other states. Leaving all winner-take-all states to Cruz is functionally the same as dropping out. Wang’s piece also has some math wrong. Some states that Wang calls “proportional" have winner-take-all at the 50% threshold or are winner take all by Congressional district. Connecticut is one such state. And were that not bad enough, Connecticut is also a state where in winner-take-all districts Kasich rather than Cruz might be more likely to beat Trump. So Wang’s facts and his analysis don’t add up.

In short, Wang’s advice is flawed across the board. There are some places where Kasich may have a strategic interest in retreat but not even close to everywhere that Wang names.

Share:

Friday, March 18, 2016

A Bridge to the General Election

We here at Multi-Candidate Field Dynamics are still very excited about all of the contests to come in this wild primary process. But because we are approaching end game in the primaries, we thought we would pivot today to a quick look at what the general election might look like. This will touch on the basics, not be a comprehensive evaluation.
The Electoral College: Don’t overweight Ohio and Florida
                Ohio and Florida are essential for Republicans to win in 2016, but not for Democrats. A lot of attention is paid to those states and rightly so. They have lots of Electoral College votes, and neither party has a lock on them. It is often assumed that the winner in Ohio or Florida will win the election. Had the Democrats added either of these states in 2000 or 2004 they would have prevailed. But since 2008, the electoral map has changed, and Ohio and Florida are no longer essential for Democrats.  
If you give Democrats the states they have won in every election since 1992 that amounts to 242 electoral votes.  A few of those states, such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin may be contested, but a Democrat who dropped these states has likely already lost. In 2016 Democrats also are favored to varying degrees in the three states that they won in either 2004 or 2008 -- Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico. This puts the Democrats at 257 electoral votes, or 13 shy of winning.  These 13 votes are most attainable from Nevada and Colorado, since Obama’s margins over his rivals in these states were greater than in any others not included in the 257. Indeed, under the current electoral map Colorado and Nevada would put the Democratic nominee at 272 electoral votes (in the 2008 map these states had more votes).  If Democrats struggle with white voters and find themselves in danger of losing Iowa or New Hampshire, they could still prevail by carrying Virginia, a state where Democrats are 6-1 in top-statewide races since 2005.  That’s why Florida and Ohio function much more as must win states for Republicans than as ultimate bellwethers. This was missed by the chattering classes throughout much of 2012 because Ohio looked like a state where Obama had a better than average lead. But in the end Ohio returned to form with a pro-Obama margin slimmer than margins in states constituting the 272 electoral-vote total described above.  This is also why the Karl Rove Ohio freak-out was so ridiculous because by that point Ohio was no longer looking decisive despite its place in the pre-election prognostication.
Quick Look at Demographics
                We understand there’s far more to electoral analysis than demographic groups.  Nor are we even close to the stage when it’s time to predict group vote totals.  But for rough analysis it’s useful to divide the electorate into five major voting groups: African-Americans, Other-Non Whites, White Evangelical Christians, White Christians (non-Evangelical), and White non-Christians.   Three of these groups, African-Americans, Other Non-Whites, and White Non-Christians strongly favor Democrats.   The other two groups favor Republicans. White Evangelicals Christians do so very strongly. White Christians (non-Evangelical) also prefer the G.O.P. by large although not overwhelming margins.    Very roughly, in this election Democratic groups should make up about 40% of the electorate and Republican groups should be about 60%, However Democrats will almost certainly run stronger in their 40% than Republicans will with their 60%. When reviewing polls and match ups, it’s crucial to make sure that the electorate is properly weighted in these demographic categories to be valid. While it is mostly forgotten, the final RCP average between Romney and Obama showed the race nearly tied. But in the end Obama won by nearly 4%. Similar errors will repeat unless the demographics are correct and mis-weighting may help explain why state polling was more correct than national polling. It’s easier to peg the demographics correctly in state elections.  Since these demographics in the electorate roughly mirror the demographics of the country having an electorate that looks wildly different from these benchmark is just not reasonable.
Conclusion:

We will dig in more as we formally get nominees or as we now have slower days in the primary, but it’s a good place to start with these quick points on the states and groups Democrats need to succeed.
Share:

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Republican Establishment leaders can seize the nomination from Trump if they want to.

The odds of a contested convention on the Republican side are exceptionally good as the risk of no candidate receiving the requisite number of delegates rose slightly after Tuesday’s vote despite Donald Trump’s win.

There are a great many people now jumping deep into the rules of how each and every individual delegate is chosen and to whom each delegate may or may not be loyal on multiple ballots. Let us save you the suspense. If the Republican Party is willing to be perceived as overturning the will of the voters then they will absolutely be able to steal the convention from Donald Trump. This is regardless of what the rules say or even how many ballots are cast. Unlike Democratic rules that are uniform across the contests Republican rules change state to state in lots of ways.

Florida is winner-take-all, and Texas is not. But the state and national parties who set those rules could still change them. Texas could become retroactively winner-take-all (helping Cruz), and Florida could be made proportional (helping Trump’s opponents). This might seem like an unfair changing of the rules in the middle of the game, and it would be. But it would be very hard for a court to find it illegal. The initial rules were relatively arbitrary to begin with. The whole system is a complete mess, not designed to handle the strain it is confronting. Such a system can be relatively easily manipulated by those who built it in the first place. Whether there is the will to do the manipulating is an entirely different question. But the manipulating can be done in so many ways that being able to name them all may be an interesting parlor game for some but is ultimately irrelevant. In the end the Convention’s fate will come down to a willingness to flout the rules not the ability to do so.

Share:

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The Path Ahead for Republicans

Here’s a quick recap of yesterday’s action.

Hillary Clinton won all five states, added at least 100, and probably more, delegates to her overall total. We will keep making delegate allocations but we won’t update the what-Sanders-needs chart because any attempt to make a case for Sanders winning would strain credibility.

Moving on. Last night was another great night for Donald Trump. He took four out of five states, knocked off Senator Rubio and looks exceptionally strong going forward.

At this point, it is worthwhile to revisit what we said about Trump as Iowa loomed. In particular, we had the pace of the race right.
“As everyone knows, the voting begins in Iowa on February 1st. We’ll turn to the stage of doom Silver identifies as Iowa/New Hampshire in a bit. But what people focus on less is that by March 15th, 31 states will have voted. This six-week window of voting will go by in a flash with very little time for buyer’s remorse. Silver’s last two stages of Doom, delegate accumulation and a pre-convention end game, simply may not happen as a clear win is possible before then. These stages won’t materialize if a candidate were to win say 25 of the 31 states. Speed can kill.”

So far Trump has won 20 contests. His closest rival,Ted Cruz, has won seven, the departed Senator Rubio won three and Governor Kasich has won one (and come in second only three times, all in New England states.) This is not the near complete sweep we envisioned and that is why the process continues. When all last night’s votes are counted, it appears Trump will end with between 680 and 700 delegates, though it will likely be closer to the top. That still puts him 500-plus delegates away from the 1237 he needs for the nomination. Of course if he keeps winning it should be relatively easy for Trump to get that number.

What we’ve learned so far is that the continuing presence of certain candidates in the race has only helped Trump. We saw that again last night. Given the exceptionally close contest yesterday in Missouri, Senator Cruz would very likely have beaten Trump there but for the presence of Rubio. North Carolina might also have fallen to Cruz and Illinois would have been far closer.

As we wrote about a few days ago, the problems of multi-candidate field dynamics and collective actions will continue to plague the Republican establishment. There are basically three battlefields left: one where Cruz stands the best chance against Trump; one where Kasich has the best chance; and one where both Cruz and Kasich have a chance. How the two Republicans choose to engage and on which field will matter a great deal.

Trump v. Cruz Turf (9 States, 318 delegates)

Cruz should run better than Kasich in these states and has a good shot at beating Trump in some of them. Trump should be a clear favorite in winner-take-all Arizona and West Virginia. Cruz would seem a mortal lock to win the Utah caucuses and he should be able to trigger the 50% winner-take all-threshold. Wyoming and Colorado held caucuses three weeks ago, but because they didn’t release the results, we’ll only be finding out the delegate counts next month. Expect a fair share of them to go to Cruz. North Dakota seems to be at the discretion of the state party and thus a wild card but likely not a Trump win. Winner-take-all Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota loom large. To stop Trump, Cruz needs to win all three. This is where multicandidate field dynamics can again play a large role. Will Kasich make a play for those states because he needs wins? If he plays for them and gets one win, and gives Trump the other two, did that help or hurt?

Trump v. Kasich Turf (7 States, 318 delegates)

Kasich is playing catch up and frankly it will be a challenge for him to win any of the states that offer him his best shot. New Jersey, a winner-take-all state, looks like a lock for Trump. His native New York also seems like a lock. Because there is a 50% winner-take-all threshold per Congressional district and statewide, it is possible the Kasich/Cruz combination could hold Trump under 50% in some districts in New York and maybe statewide. Delaware is straight winner take all. Pennsylvania and Maryland are winner take all by Congressional district and for state at large delegates. Connecticut is winner-take-all statewide if a candidate reaches 50% of the vote; if no candidate does, then it’s winner take all by Congressional district and proportional at the statewide level. Cruz has incentives to play in certain districts in these three states. Because five of these seven states vote on the same, Cruz may try to kill off Kasich. He then can face off against Trump in California and Indiana. Keeping Trump from delegates here may not be as important for the goal of stopping Trump as finally turning this into a two-person race.

Shared Territory (7 states and territories, 352 delegates)

The collective action problem is a nightmare for the Republicans in these states. Either Kasich or Cruz could win against Trump in these seven states. It would not be easy but it is possible. Trump’s roughly 40% ceiling in similar states such as Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri make him beatable in a two-person race in states such as Wisconsin and Indiana. But Wisconsin, which votes in three weeks, is likely to be a three-way race. In a three-person race, Trump’s ability to get between 36% and 40% could easily see him sweep the delegates. That turns what would otherwise be a meaningless battle for second-place delegates into a fierce fight between Kasich and Cruz to try to eliminate the other. Washington is another state where a two-person race could deprive Trump of a substantial number of delegates, but a three-person race doesn’t. Washington, which is not a particularly good state for Trump, has a 50% winner-take-all threshold at the district level. In a two-person race, another candidate could get over the threshold; in a three-person race the delegates are likely to split and Trump will come away with a decent haul.

Conclusion

The choices left to the Republican Establishment are not good but at the same time the pressure remains on Donald Trump to keep winning. Were he to stop winning, all the talk about his being an inevitable nominee would be ridiculous. Even if one gave him all the delegates from his four best remaining states, Arizona, West Virginia, New York and New Jersey, and some of the proportional delegates he is likely to win in a few other states, Trump still needs at least 200 delegates to get a majority. There are lots of places for Trump to get delegates for sure, but there are also lots of places to deny them. It will take smart collective action, and that has been lacking during the entire primary process.The effort has been poorly targeted and the inner-selfishness of the candidates has never curtailed.

After yesterday, Donald Trump will almost certainly enter the convention with the most votes cast in his favor. There is no doubt that if the Republicans are prepared to cheat (and there infinite ways to cheat), they can keep Trump from winning. But will they actually be willing to do that and risk alienating the 35% to 40% of the Republican Party who voted for Trump? We are still a long way from facing that possibility and we have Arizona and Utah in a week.

Share:

Monday, March 14, 2016

Democratic March 15th preview

Democratic March 15th preview
                This is another case where the reported narrative outcome and the division of the delegates may cut in opposite directions. Illinois and Missouri look too close to call, with Ohio not far behind. However North Carolina and Florida look pretty near to locks for Secretary Clinton.   The key point is that barring an unbelievable miracle. Clinton will almost certainly net more delegates and likely by a not inconsiderable number.  As we have mentioned here, Ohio presents an interesting case.  There are 29 delegates available in just two districts (the Ohio 3rd and 11th). If they vote anything like the Michigan 13th and 14th, then a “loss” for Clinton in Ohio could easily mean a delegate win.  Same with Illinois. You don’t see this situation in Missouri, which is likely to follow the statewide winner.  So overall it is possible the narrative and the delegates will remain in sync this time.   But if they don’t, follow the delegates.   Find below overall totals followed by a complete allocation chart .
Totals
Overall: Clinton 395 Sanders 296
Florida Clinton 133 Sanders 81
North Carolina Clinton 67 Sanders 40
Illinois Clinton 83 Sanders 73
Ohio Clinton 76 Sanders 67
Missouri Clinton 36 Sanders 35

Bucket
Clinton
Sanders
FL AL
29
17
FL PLEO
18
10
FL 1
2
1
FL 2
4
2
FL 3
2
2
FL 4
2
2
FL 5
4
2
FL 6
3
2
FL 7
3
2
FL 8
3
2
FL 9
3
2
FL 10
3
2
FL 11
3
2
FL 12
3
2
FL 13
3
3
FL 14
3
3
FL 15
3
2
FL 16
3
3
FL 17
2
2
FL 18
4
2
FL 19
2
2
FL 20
5
2
FL 21
4
3
FL 22
4
2
FL 23
4
2
FL 24
6
2
FL 25
2
1
FL26
3
1
FL 27
3
1



Bucket
Clinton
Sanders
NC AL
13
10
NC PLEO
8
6
NC
6
2
NC 2
3
1
NC 3
3
1
NC 4
5
3
NC 5
3
2
NC 6
3
2
NC 7
3
1
NC 8
2
2
NC 9
3
2
NC 10
3
2
NC 11
2
2
NC 12
6
2
NC 13
4
2







Bucket
Clinton
Sanders
IL AL
17
17
IL PLEO
10
10
IL 1
6
3
IL 2
5
3
IL 3
3
2
IL 4
3
2
IL 5
3
3
IL 6
3
2
IL 7
6
3
IL 8
2
2
IL 9
4
3
IL 10
3
2
IL 11
2
3
Il 12
3
3
IL 13
2
3
IL 14
2
2
IL 15
2
2
IL 16
2
3
IL 17
3
3
IL 18
2
2

Buckets
Clinton
Sanders
OH AL
16
15
OH PLEO
10
9
OH 1
2
2
OH 2
2
2
OH 3
7
5
OH 4
2
2
OH 5
2
2
OH 6
2
2
OH 7
2
2
OH 8
2
2
OH 9
4
4
OH 10
2
2
OH 11
11
6
OH 12
2
2
OH 13
4
4
OH14
2
2
OH15
2
2
OH 16
2
2





Buckets
Clinton
Sanders
MO AL
8
7
MO PLEO
5
4
MO 1
6
4
MO 2
3
3
MO 3
2
3
MO 4
2
3
MO 5
4
3
MO 6
2
3
MO 7
2
2
MO 8
2
3


Share:

The Scorecard

The Scorecard

The Scorecard is a political strategy and analysis blog. Our hope is to provide information and insight that can be found nowhere else into how and why things are happening in American politics. Unlike many political pundits, we will tell you who we think is going to win as an election approaches; we will tell you why; and we will give you a sense of our level of confidence. Ours is a holistic approach, one that takes in as many numbers as possible but is also willing to look past the numbers if need be. When we turn out to have been wrong, we will let you know. When we are right, we’ll let you know that too.

Our Delegate Math


Delegate Count


Delegate Contests

About Me

Delegate Count

Author Jason Paul is a longtime political operative who got his start as an intern in 2002. He has been a political forecaster for almost as long. He won the 2006 Swing State Project election prediction contest and has won two other local contests. He had the pulse of Obama-Clinton race in 2008 and has been as good as anyone at delegate math in the 2016 race. He looks forwards to providing quality coverage for the remainder of the 2016 race.

Blog Archive